People need to keep in mind that simply having nice-looking stats doesn't always cut it for HOF nods; Players are judged in comparison to their peers, and HOF voters specifically like to see players that were dominant for their particular position.

Some of the players listed have great stats, but were never the best player at their position at any point in time during their career.

Just curious, but when was Curtis Martin ever the best RB in the league, or even one of the most feared RBs? Yes, he had some good seasons and was very durable, but I never remember him being one of the very best RBs in the NFL.

Just curious, but when was Curtis Martin ever the best RB in the league, or even one of the most feared RBs? Yes, he had some good seasons and was very durable, but I never remember him being one of the very best RBs in the NFL.

Just curious, but when was Curtis Martin ever the best RB in the league, or even one of the most feared RBs? Yes, he had some good seasons and was very durable, but I never remember him being one of the very best RBs in the NFL.

In my opinion, he seems like the RB version of Art Monk.

#4 in rushing yards all time doesnt get you in :shock:

Again, has extremely durable, but when was he the best RB in the league?

Also, Art Monk retired as the career leader in receptions, yet is not in the Hall of Fame.

i'd agree with that list... but in a couple years i think you could add Olin Kreutz to that list... although Centers rarely get in, he has been the best in the game at his position for at least 3 years, and probably at least 3 or 4 more to come.

Pretty darn impressive. Among the top 10 in yards from scrimmage 8 times in his career. He led the league in rushing once, finished second twice, and came in third once. Although he was only the 'best' statistically once, hardly any other player can be that consistent. Running backs take the most hits, and most only have a shelf life of 5 or 6 years. He was consistently once of the best for 11 years.

All homerism aside, anyone who has an OL and not Ogden, or defensive player and not Ray Lewis is rediculous. Ray has two DPOY awards and a super bowl MVP, and Ogden has been to more probowls than any active OL and was the most dominant OL of his era. People have short memories; not long ago Ray was winning the argument over who was the greatest MLB of all time. Same with Ogden at OT, he was in the mix. They're as sure fire as it gets along with Favre, Brady and Manning. Thats the list. You have to be dominant in your era, understand what that means. That's not flavor of the month or who was good for the past three years. Think about how many probowls (is it approaching double digits?), DPOY/OPOY's, records, MVP's and rings the guys on your list have been to compared to those guys.

All homerism aside, anyone who has an OL and not Ogden, or defensive player and not Ray Lewis is rediculous. Ray has two DPOY awards and a super bowl MVP, and [Ogden has been to more probowls than any active OL and was the most dominant OL of his era. People have short memories; not long ago Ray was winning the argument over who was the greatest MLB of all time. Same with Ogden at OT, he was in the mix. They're as sure fire as it gets along with Brady and Manning. Thats the list. You have to be dominant in your era, understand what that means. That's not flavor of the month or who was good for the past three years. Think about how many probowls (is it approaching double digits?), DPOY/OPOY's, records, MVP's and rings the guys on your list have been to compared to those guys.

I beg to differ; Orlando Pace and Willie Roaf were better during their prime, and they shut-down the very best DEs in the league. Ogden dominated average and below-average talent, but struggled against the top DEs in the league.

Ogden gets a lot of hype, but he is a step below Pace and Roaf on the all-time OT rankings.

All homerism aside, anyone who has an OL and not Ogden, or defensive player and not Ray Lewis is rediculous. Ray has two DPOY awards and a super bowl MVP, and [Ogden has been to more probowls than any active OL and was the most dominant OL of his era. People have short memories; not long ago Ray was winning the argument over who was the greatest MLB of all time. Same with Ogden at OT, he was in the mix. They're as sure fire as it gets along with Brady and Manning. Thats the list. You have to be dominant in your era, understand what that means. That's not flavor of the month or who was good for the past three years. Think about how many probowls (is it approaching double digits?), DPOY/OPOY's, records, MVP's and rings the guys on your list have been to compared to those guys.

I beg to differ; Orlando Pace and Willie Roaf were better during their prime, and they shut-down the very best DEs in the league. Ogden dominated average and below-average talent, but struggled against the top DEs in the league.

Ogden gets a lot of hype, but he is a step below Pace and Roaf on the all-time OT rankings.

What?? Who did Pace line up against in the NFC west? And Roaf, Roaf is the one who's overhyped, simply because he played on a great Chiefs OL, blocking for some great backs. Why don't you compare Pro Bowls or All Pro's; those are the only stats you can get on OL and JO dominates those for his time. The only guy who could challenge JO for the title was Boselli and tragically he didn't get his chance.
You have to factor in consistency, you can't say somebody else as better in their prime (what is this anyways? A 2-year window? 1?). Consistency helps eliminate the variables involved such as the argument that JO has faced weak opposition. Thats rediculous, he's faced and dominated so many different guys. JO was better than those guys in their prime anyways, he never had a single probowler on the line with him, and still dominated. OL has been a weak link for the Ravens for their entire existence almost and still JO has never not been looked at as a top 5 OT. Pace played on one of the most prolific offenses of all time and has not made as many pro bowls or all-pro teams. What have the Ravens always been known for? Defense.

All homerism aside, anyone who has an OL and not Ogden, or defensive player and not Ray Lewis is rediculous. Ray has two DPOY awards and a super bowl MVP, and [Ogden has been to more probowls than any active OL and was the most dominant OL of his era. People have short memories; not long ago Ray was winning the argument over who was the greatest MLB of all time. Same with Ogden at OT, he was in the mix. They're as sure fire as it gets along with Brady and Manning. Thats the list. You have to be dominant in your era, understand what that means. That's not flavor of the month or who was good for the past three years. Think about how many probowls (is it approaching double digits?), DPOY/OPOY's, records, MVP's and rings the guys on your list have been to compared to those guys.

I beg to differ; Orlando Pace and Willie Roaf were better during their prime, and they shut-down the very best DEs in the league. Ogden dominated average and below-average talent, but struggled against the top DEs in the league.

Ogden gets a lot of hype, but he is a step below Pace and Roaf on the all-time OT rankings.

What?? Who did Pace line up against in the NFC west? And Roaf, Roaf is the one who's overhyped, simply because he played on a great Chiefs OL, blocking for some great backs. Why don't you compare Pro Bowls or All Pro's; those are the only stats you can get on OL and JO dominates those for his time. The only guy who could challenge JO for the title was Boselli and tragically he didn't get his chance.

Yes, guys like Priest Holmes, Trent Green, Derrick Blaylock...they've always been known as great NFL players, right? They were the ones that were making that KC O-line look good, not the other way around. The odd thing is that KC's offense took a huge nosedive this year for some reason....I still can't figure out what was missing.

You're right, Pro Bowls and All Pros are the only way to compare HOF credentials, thanks for making that highly intelligent point.